It’s not a normal position

She fears for her own and her family’s safety. She has — temporarily at least — lost her job and found it almost impossible to find anyone to represent her in any potential employment case. She rang round the human rights lawyers she knows, all of whom have declined to help citing a conflict of interest. “Although it is said that we must defend everybody no matter what they’ve done, it appears that if you’re a secular, atheist, Asian British woman, you don’t deserve a defence from our civil right firms,” she says wryly.

Moazzam Begg sets us all straight about that.

He counters Sahgal’s view by saying she is, in her own way, a fundamentalist: “She advocates the government shouldn’t even be engaging with the Muslim Council of Britain. It’s not a normal position.”

Because…? Because the BBC thinks the Muslim Council of Britain is as normal as any Council of Britain could possibly be, therefore to think otherwise is not normal, in fact it’s downright perverted, while affectionate support for the Taliban is entirely average and healthy and quotidian. It’s good to get these things sorted out.

Related posts

15 Responses to “It’s not a normal position”

There are quite a few compications to this, though. On is that some of the left-leaning firms are almost certainly genuinely conflicted – i.e. they may well have done work for Amnesty in the past, and are now forbidden act against it. If they did so, they might face some pretty nasty consequences if a legal ethics complaint were lodged by Amnesty.

She should try some of the city commercial firms, which would be well-stocked with competent employment lawyers who normally act for employers. She might well find someone who finds the case (1) interesting enough and/or (2) reflective enough of their own concerns abou the Taliban to take it on either pro bono or at a reduced rate.

That said, I agree with her protest against giving a platform to a Taliban supporter … but I don’t think her legal case for reinstatement or compensation is strong. Sorry, but these are quite distinct questions.

I’ve said in a couple of other forums that she should have resigned in protest. I suppose this way she might get a settlement, which will give her some money to live on in the short term, but she’s not in a strong legal position, and resigning in protest would have been a more honorable course. In her position, that’s what I would feel conscience-bound to do, and I’m surprised she hasn’t done it.

It would also be much better PR; at the moment, she looks like she’s trying to have things both ways.

Hopefully, there’s an employer with goals more closely attuned to hers that will snap her up and resolve all this.

I’m just furious over this. It’s cynical, I know, but I’m resigned to suspecting Amnesty will let institutional “we can’t admit to being wrong” pride overrule its better, ethical judgment. Sadly, all organizations – be they corporations, advocacy groups, nonprofits – seem to suffer from the same hubris. It’s rare for a large organization of any stripe to stop itself from sacrificing a whistleblower, and do a public about face.

Russell, Gita Sahgal is apparently very attached to her job at AI and hopes to be reinstated. She is indeed trying to shame her employer into reversing its policy and as to whether this is a less honourable course than simply resigning depends. It depends on whether AI has sufficient internal mechanisms for dissenting staff opinions to be heard and addresed, whether there is the amount of professional disquiet that Gita claims there is (in which case her speaking out serves a larger staff constituency), on whether AI – as an institution that depends on public donations- has obligations to its ‘shareholders’, the public, whether Amnesty’s decision to partner Begg(cageprisoners comes with him as baggage) actually conflicts with Gita’s remit as officer in charge of the gender unit.

I have a feeling that Sahgal will not win this one – she appears despondent as well. Quietly resigning and then speaking out would not have had the impact the issue in its current form has- I feel that Sahgal knows how the media and public attention work.

mirax, she could have resigned in protest very publicly. Resigning quietly and saying nothing would have been useless, of course (I realise you’re not suggesting this course of action).

But, yes, I do have reasons to think her employment position is weak. Some of them may be obvious to y’all if you think about it. And if she chose not to resign, thinking this would get her suspended or fired and that that would get her more media attention, well it makes her case even weaker. Maybe she can win the employment side of the battle, but any competent employment lawyer would have to tell her that she’s gone about this in a way that puts her on weak legal ground, whatever its PR impact.

I could go into detail as to why I think her position (on the employment question, not the question of Amnesty giving support to Begg) is shaky. But it might not be what people here would like to know. So, unless quizzed on it, I’ll just say that, as someone who, in a previous existence, used to do a lot of work in this sort of area, I think she has some very serious hurdles.

Still, surely some smart lawyer will take this on. Amnesty might well offer a monetary settlement just to be rid of someone whom they now regard as a disloyal employee/loose cannon (sorry, guys … but trust me, that’s exactly how the management of Amnesty will now be thinking of her). Or just to take some oxygen out of the story.

By the way, allow me to be absolutely clear that I have no great respect for Amnesty International. I used to belong to it, but I left it years ago as I saw it straying from its core mission. This latest debacle just makes me glad I did.

One thing that’s interesting about this – and sorry to keep approaching it with my employment lawyer hat on; old habits are hard to break – is that they suspended her. I.e. they didn’t (yet) fire her. We haven’t been told whether it’s suspension on pay or suspension without pay. But either way, it suggests to me that Amnesty has some reason not to fire her outright, even though it might have grounds for summary dismissal of a high-level policy-implementation employee who publicly opposes its lawful policies.

I wonder what her contract says about rights to some kind of process before she can be dismissed from employment, and whether it gives her any other unusual employment rights that might come in handy. She really needs to find that smart lawyer and get all these angles looked at.

Thanks for that Russell. I dont doubt your analysis or good intentions and do see how it is near impossible for Gita Sahgal to return blithely to the status quo.

I read that there is an internal inquiry afoot at AI but am not sure whether it is merely a diciplinary one looking into Gita’s conduct or also includes a review of its policy vis-a-vis Begg/Cageprisoners. It would be harder for AI to deal with this issue in the typical employer’s way if the staff revolt widens. The Sam Zarifi leaked memo suggests at minimum a sympathy for Gita’s plight from some of her colleagues, and maybe, just maybe, heralds another public disawowal of AI policy. AI was wrong to choose Begg as a Human Rights Defender (HRD) and Cageprisoners as co-campaigners (AI is very careful not to mention the dodgy outfit in its press statements but CP’s activities are publicised on AI’s website.

As for supporting AI, I live in a quasi police state and cant afford too much cynicism about a great human rights organisation like AI.